Others have come to the conclusion that I am a fascist

Comments

In my country I see the rise of fascism/nazism/extreme communism, each advocating diminishing the freedom of everyone else

China recently banned rap music and hip hop culture. It's for the whole reason fascists don't like it. They view it as degenerate and destroying their society. China though is semi-communist.

When a country goes hardcore communist, they ban the same leftist stuff that fascists also don't like.

it's rather ironic actually, china used to be 100% communist, but then when they started to veer away from it and allow more freedom in their country, over 500 million people ( which is more people that live in the entirety of north america) went from dirt poor to middle class, hence the reason why china is doing so well economically, now even with that said, they still have some work to do, like workers rights and all that but they are slowly getting better

i also find it funny when people say communism is better because it's based on the idea of everyone has the same amount of money so its more "fair" which sounds great on paper, but what happens in reality is that the government just steals all the money and makes everyone live in mud bascially, anyone who lives in a communist country hates communism, and the only people who say communism is a good idea is the people living in developed countries who aren't greatfull for all the good things that they have in life ( whether how little they have, it's still better than a developing nation )

also this arbitrary "fairness" that comes with communism is complete nonsense, because if you are someone that is a hard worker, wants to start a company, wants to work 80 hours a week to become successful, your communist government basically tells you to go pound sand and says; i dont care how hard you work or how successful you want to become, you still are only going to get as much money as that homeless person over there, and in my opinion that is complete BS, if someone works their ass off to become successful, they should be rewarded for it, and if someone sits on their ass all day doing nothing just being a parasite to the system, then they deserve nothing, why should i work my ass off just so some parasite can profit from it? how is that "fair"?

@Zaghouloh it was personal... my brother still thinks i am a fascist but i dont care anymore...

I thought so, that's rough. Family can sometimes be the toughest group to deal with, family businesses as well (I know, lawd, I know).Some things I just don't discuss with family and try to keep the conversation off politics and religion and various other issues just to keep the lines of communication open. I usually just say 'Id rather not discuss that', if pressed on certain issues (and if they do I just say I have to leave for a while). Hard not to though at times, certainly. As long as you know what you believe in , the heck with the rest of em, if need be.

anyone who lives in a communist country hates communism, and the only people who say communism is a good idea is the people living in developed countries who aren't greatfull for all the good things that they have in life

Communism never would have survived if everyone who lived under it was opposed to it. The reason it became such an incredibly powerful force is because it was inspiring: it gave people a simple solution to all of their problems, gave people a convenient scapegoat, and promised a utopia. Liberal democracy, by contrast, offered a complex solution to most of their problems, offered no scapegoat for people to rally against, and promised a better world instead of a perfect world. That's why communism drew so many converts: like a lot of contagious ideologies, it promised a quick fix and gave people a scapegoat.

We ran into that problem numerous times during the Cold War. It was difficult to establish solid democracies when the Soviets were promising poor people that they could solve their problems just by killing rich people. Slaying evil dragons is sexier than discussing fiscal policy.

Further complicating things was that the United States had to sell both capitalism and democracy at the same time. Defending democracy was hard enough; defending capitalism just made us look like we were shills for big business. It was a hard image to shrug off.

The only reason communism lost out to democracy in the end was because its economic model was based on the assumption that people would work for the good of their world instead of their own self-interest. It wasn't until communist countries started experiencing horrible growth rates, and poor people in capitalist countries turned out to be richer than normal people in communist countries, that folks began to realize that the communist economic model wasn't workable.

Since China only pays lip service to communist ideology these days, North Korea remains the only truly communist state in the world, and it only stays intact due to a combination of intensive propaganda and its unique relationships with China and the United States: it keeps the U.S. at bay by threatening to wipe out Seoul, and it convinces China to prop it up so that the U.S. does not put American forces on China's border in the event of a northern collapse. Otherwise it would died a long time ago.

since communism is about irrational "fairness" the only way to make it "fair" for everyone is to keep them all under the government thumb, and that means it's your governments way or the highway ( or just death in some causes ) thats a big problem i have with communism

in a communist community you HAVE to agree with whats going on, and your opinion or idea how to make something better is against the government in the government's eye and there will be repercussions for your actions, as i said, communism sounds great on paper, but the reality is, communism is ass awful

i have heard stories where north koreans are trying to flee north korea because they can't stand the government there, never hear stories of people fleeing from countries like canada or america, and even when donald trump was voted in and people were saying that they would leave the US because, i have yet to hear even one story of someone leaving america because of him

so when it comes down to it: people would rather live in america with donald trump than live in north korea with kim jon what's his pickle,

and i think a big reason behind that is because communism is complete garbage, and even though trump is a silly nilly, americans still have their freedom to do as they please, in fact trump still lets his civillians have protests against him with those marches and all that jargon, you think holmes from north korea would allow that? not in the slightless

I was referring more to the historical context than the present reality. During the Cold War, it was not yet common knowledge that pure communism was insufficient--back then, people could still credibly claim that it was better to be a poor person in a communist country than in a capitalist country.

The lack of freedom is less important than you might expect. Most people care a lot more about money than they do about their own personal freedoms, even in the United States. Democracy promised more freedom for everyone; communism promised more money for the poor.

I would definitely prefer living in a country run by Donald Trump to living in a country run by Kim Jong Un, or even Vladimir Putin, or even Xi Jinping.

I was referring more to the historical context than the present reality. During the Cold War, it was not yet common knowledge that pure communism was insufficient--back then, people could still credibly claim that it was better to be a poor person in a communist country than in a capitalist country.

The lack of freedom is less important than you might expect. Most people care a lot more about money than they do about their own personal freedoms, even in the United States. Democracy promised more freedom for everyone; communism promised more money for the poor.

I would definitely prefer living in a country run by Donald Trump to living in a country run by Kim Jong Un, or even Vladimir Putin, or even Xi Jinping.

What communism promised for the supporters who lived in the west wasmore influence and importance for themselves.

It's really important that this is not overlooked. It's the failures, the misfits, the egoists, those who believe thay are not getting their due, who point to a different system and say isn't it so much better because they sincerely believe that if the system was different, they themselves would be more succesful. Naked self interest hidden behind loud proclaimations of their superior morality.

Not so different to what's happening at the moment. But rather than a system they can point at and say "that's the ideal, things would be so much better", as they no longer have that, they simply want to destroy. And unfortunately they are not being held to account.

Nobody is even discussing what the long term will be if all the certainties that have got us to this stage are swept away. Even with the fallout becoming apparent as those systems of organising society are crumbling.

Not saying there are not faults with the current systems, but it's so much easier to destroy than build. So much easier to gain influence and power (which translates to wealth) by attacking what exists rather than creating something in it's place.

I'm going to keep out of this conversation, but I will say that I was fortunate enough to visit East Germany in January/February of 1990. No one will ever convince me that a system which made a nation of Germans lazy, poor, and dirty has any merit whatsoever.

That's what self-avowed Communists say every time; "oooh, the camps, the persecution, the induced famines, the surveillance state, the repression of Hungary etc., nooo, not communism, no, just an aberration by people who, as it turned out, were not Communists after all. Actually, those guys - who as previously vouchsaved were not Communists, only did those things because they were forced to by external circumstances, viz. Capitalism. Just you wait 'till next time, show you true Communism next time. We're very nice, honest."

The very same people are never in doubt that the ravages of capitalism are just that, every time, no excuses.

Probably because Nazism was objectively worse. There was no move by Stalin to plunge Europe (and then the rest of the world) into the worst armed conflict in history. Despite his killing of millions of his own citizens in the gulags, there is no victory in World War 2 without the Soviet Union breaking Hitler's forces at Stalingrad.

Beyond that, the threat to the rest of the world from communism may or may not have been there after the war, but it was the United States who escalated that conflict. We invented the bomb that started the arms race. We are the ones who dropped tens of thousands of troops into Vietnam and then carpet-bombed Cambodia, killing nearly a million people on it's own. The Cold War was a perceived threat, not much of a real one, and was simply used as an excuse for the United States to engage in imperialistic moves around the globe. It was American generals who wanted to let the bombs fly during the Cuban Missile Crisis, and it's a miracle of fate that Kennedy was somehow able to wiggle his way out of that situation.

It's still pretty hated, but the Holocaust was statistically worse than any other mass killing in history, and Germany and their Axis allies are almost 100% responsible for starting World War 2. Nothing the Soviets or Chinese did on the world stage rivals that. In their own countries, sure, absolutely.

Even if you discount government oppression on the grounds that it's not "real communism," the failure of the economic model is enough to make it roughly as destructive as Nazism. The death toll of the Great Leap Forward was 30-40 million in China; the death toll of the Holocaust and World War 2 more generally is 10 million and 50-80 million, respectively.

The long-term effects of communism are also more negative than those of fascism. Today, formerly fascist countries are generally in better shape than formerly communist countries.

Even if you discount government oppression on the grounds that it's not "real communism," the failure of the economic model is enough to make it roughly as destructive as Nazism. The death toll of the Great Leap Forward was 30-40 million in China; the death toll of the Holocaust and World War 2 more generally is 10 million and 50-80 million, respectively.

The long-term effects of communism are also more negative than those of fascism. Today, formerly fascist countries are generally in better shape than formerly communist countries.

That's because the formerly fascist countries were defeated and humiliated in war. Communist countries sought mostly to implement their policies, not get bogged down in invasions and armed conflict. When the Soviet Union did do so (in Afghanistan), it was their downfall. The Marshall Plan also played a large role in this.

The fascists did impose an authoritarian one-party state like the Leninists did, along with a whole bunch of other oppressive crap, but the fascists were not opposed to corporations or free markets.

@semiticgod I'm fairly certain that fascists are very much against free markets. They are far more in favor of state capitalism, and are repressive of autonomous economic actors outside of the state. This stems from the concern with the "collective good" of the nation.

There is a reason why FDR admired Mussolini's domestic policies so much.

Also, among those considered to be modern day fascists and white nationalists, there is a very strong anti-capitalist and pro-redistribution streak

Beyond that, the threat to the rest of the world from communism may or may not have been there after the war, but it was the United States who escalated that conflict. We invented the bomb that started the arms race. We are the ones who dropped tens of thousands of troops into Vietnam and then carpet-bombed Cambodia, killing nearly a million people on it's own. The Cold War was a perceived threat, not much of a real one, and was simply used as an excuse for the United States to engage in imperialistic moves around the globe.

This is only true if you ignore all of Soviet imperialism.

You can't compare the level of foreign intervention by the United States with having 12 different satellite states. Even when you count military intervention, you are forgetting about the invasion of Hungary which preceded the Vietnam War. Soviet Imperialism was always a bigger threat than its American counterpart.

Beyond that, the threat to the rest of the world from communism may or may not have been there after the war, but it was the United States who escalated that conflict.

Tell that to Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, & East Germany. The Soviets also made plays for Yugoslavia, Greece, Finland, Austria, Albania, Korea & Manchuria at one time or another. There's also evidence that they had plans to invade Japan that were thwarted when they surrendered to us instead (due in part to the atomic bomb I might add). It's dangerously naive to think that the Cold War was primarily the fault of the U.S.

Beyond that, the threat to the rest of the world from communism may or may not have been there after the war, but it was the United States who escalated that conflict.

Tell that to Poland, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Mongolia, & East Germany. The Soviets also made plays for Yugoslavia, Greece, Finland, Austria, Albania, Korea & Manchuria at one time or another. There's also evidence that they had plans to invade Japan that were thwarted when they surrendered to us instead (due in part to the atomic bomb I might add). It's dangerously naive to think that the Cold War was primarily the fault of the U.S.

For sure. My mother's grandfather was killed by communist guerrillas in Greece that were armed by the Soviets. This was in the late 40s, long before Vietnam. The Truman Doctrine was a response to that conflict, not an escalation of it.

This is not that uncommon, from either side. During the Obama administration the "Marxist" label was thrown around far too liberally. Its a lazy simple tactic that is designed to end debate and saddle the other side with the worst excesses of people nominally on their "side" of the political spectrum (which itself is an oversimplification).

It's less dangerous when it comes to terms like "fascist" or "communist", since the average bystander is unlikely to buy into such labels. The impact of those labels have been diminished by overuse. The far more nefarious accusations are those of racism and sexism, which are now thrown around far too easily. We've already seen "racist" and "sexist" diminish as descriptive terms on account of overuse when real sexists and racists rise to prominence only to see eyes roll when they are described as such.

Also, between the early 1930s and at least 1956, and in many cases for decades after that, the intelligentsia in many Western countries willfully ignored the plain facts of the Cold War in general and Stalin's excesses in particular, using their hard-won freedoms in liberal democracies to decry same and dream of totalitarianism, which they dressed up as a paradise embodied by Stalin. For all their disawoval of deities and kings, communists have had a marked penchant for putting Stalin (Lenin, Mao, Enver Hoxa, take your pick) on a pedestal in their place.

Also, between the early 1930s and at least 1956, and in many cases for decades after that, the intelligentsia in many Western countries willfully ignored the plain facts of the Cold War in general and Stalin's excesses in particular, using their hard-won freedoms in liberal democracies to decry same and dream of totalitarianism, which they dressed up as a paradise embodied by Stalin. For all their disawoval of deities and kings, communists have had a marked penchant for putting Stalin (Lenin, Mao, Enver Hoxa, take your pick) on a pedestal in their place.

Unfortunately we still see Americans fetishize foreign tyrants. We saw it yesterday with the admiration shown to Kim Yo-jong. We also saw it with Trump's Putin fascination, and with every kind word sent Castro's way by wide-eyed and air-headed celebrities.

Also, between the early 1930s and at least 1956, and in many cases for decades after that, the intelligentsia in many Western countries willfully ignored the plain facts of the Cold War in general and Stalin's excesses in particular, using their hard-won freedoms in liberal democracies to decry same and dream of totalitarianism, which they dressed up as a paradise embodied by Stalin. For all their disawoval of deities and kings, communists have had a marked penchant for putting Stalin (Lenin, Mao, Enver Hoxa, take your pick) on a pedestal in their place.

Unfortunately we still see Americans fetishize foreign tyrants. We saw it yesterday with the admiration shown to Kim Yo-jong. We also saw it with Trump's Putin fascination, and with every kind word sent Castro's way by wide-eyed and air-headed celebrities.

Elected officials essentially doing the bidding of foreign dictators isn't even remotely analogous to Sean Penn saying flowery things about Castro or Cuba. People claim to not care what celebrities think, then ascribe their words and actions power they don't actually have.

Also, between the early 1930s and at least 1956, and in many cases for decades after that, the intelligentsia in many Western countries willfully ignored the plain facts of the Cold War in general and Stalin's excesses in particular, using their hard-won freedoms in liberal democracies to decry same and dream of totalitarianism, which they dressed up as a paradise embodied by Stalin. For all their disawoval of deities and kings, communists have had a marked penchant for putting Stalin (Lenin, Mao, Enver Hoxa, take your pick) on a pedestal in their place.

Unfortunately we still see Americans fetishize foreign tyrants. We saw it yesterday with the admiration shown to Kim Yo-jong. We also saw it with Trump's Putin fascination, and with every kind word sent Castro's way by wide-eyed and air-headed celebrities.

Elected officials essentially doing the bidding of foreign dictators isn't even remotely analogous to Sean Penn saying flowery things about Castro or Cuba. People claim to not care what celebrities think, then ascribe their words and actions power they don't actually have.

1. I never compared the two, though I think its insane to say that Trump is doing the bidding of Putin2. I was referring to Michael Moore, who like it or not does have some influence. His films were widely viewed not that long ago3. The admiration for Kim Yo-Jong didn't come from documentary directors, it came from CNN. The most mainstream source for cable news published an article that strted with "If "diplomatic dance" were an event at the Winter Olympics, Kim Jong Un's younger sister would be favored to win gold.With a smile, a handshake and a warm message in South Korea's presidential guest book, Kim Yo Jong has struck a chord with the public just one day into the PyeongChang Games."This is about a woman who is in charge of the Worker's Party of Korea's Propaganda and Agitation Department.

If the media's symbol of unity between the North and South Korean people is part of the most brutally violent and tyrannical family in world, I'm afraid the efforts will end in failure. The fetishization of evil communist tyrants is still very much alive.

i also find it funny when people say communism is better because it's based on the idea of everyone has the same amount of money so its more "fair" which sounds great on paper, but what happens in reality is that the government just steals all the money and makes everyone live in mud bascially, anyone who lives in a communist country hates communism, and the only people who say communism is a good idea is the people living in developed countries who aren't greatfull for all the good things that they have in life ( whether how little they have, it's still better than a developing nation )

I think that allure of communism isn't based on that kind of fairness, but rather on idea that the way means of production are owned in capitalist society is wrong. Obviously, collective ownership raises lots of practical problems that are hard (if possible) to resolve, but this is the goal.

also this arbitrary "fairness" that comes with communism is complete nonsense, because if you are someone that is a hard worker, wants to start a company, wants to work 80 hours a week to become successful, your communist government basically tells you to go pound sand and says; i dont care how hard you work or how successful you want to become, you still are only going to get as much money as that homeless person over there, and in my opinion that is complete BS, if someone works their ass off to become successful, they should be rewarded for it, and if someone sits on their ass all day doing nothing just being a parasite to the system, then they deserve nothing, why should i work my ass off just so some parasite can profit from it? how is that "fair"?

Communism provides some answer to that: there are people who are "parasites" not because of lack of virtue, but because of economical and social circumstances they live. If you are child of homeless drug addict and prostitute you will have it harder. And it's not just matter of money: you probably won't have opportunity to make social connections to help you out, you'll have to worry to survive instead of, for an instance, learning, you'll have to bear stigma because of your parents. And it works other way around, obviously: having middle-class parents makes you much more likely to succeed - if not for any other reason, then because you at least probably have some safe haven when things go bad. How is *that* fair?

Also - it's worth noting that capitalism is based on myth of "self-made man" and ignores things I mentioned above. And other thing - while communism can lead to class-fueled hatred and genocide, capitalism, by itself, "dehumanizes" people, because it bounds person's worth with their ability to produce. This leads to calling people "parasites" and denying their worth.

I honestly can't understand why Communism is not as hated as Nazism.

I think it's because philosophy of nazism is inherently violent and genocidal. IMHO the basic the difference between them is that when Stalin was losing in the war and there was serious risk that Germans will take over Moscow, he made truce with Orthodox Church, his enemy, because that was rational thing to do.When Hitler was losing war, he continued Holocaust to the last possible moment, even when that harmed war effort. That is vital difference. Other thing - philosophy of nazism is based on idea that races are different and some are superior to others. It's core belief is that biologically some people are inferior. Meanwhile core belief of communism is that history is rational and it moves forward through revolutions fueled by class warfare and leads to classless utopia. I think that there is pretty big difference between saying that Jews are lesser, subhuman beings, and saying that bourgeoisie is oppresing class and working class should revolt.

i also find it funny when people say communism is better because it's based on the idea of everyone has the same amount of money so its more "fair" which sounds great on paper, but what happens in reality is that the government just steals all the money and makes everyone live in mud bascially, anyone who lives in a communist country hates communism, and the only people who say communism is a good idea is the people living in developed countries who aren't greatfull for all the good things that they have in life ( whether how little they have, it's still better than a developing nation )

I think that allure of communism isn't based on that kind of fairness, but rather on idea that the way means of production are owned in capitalist society is wrong. Obviously, collective ownership raises lots of practical problems that are hard (if possible) to resolve, but this is the goal.

also this arbitrary "fairness" that comes with communism is complete nonsense, because if you are someone that is a hard worker, wants to start a company, wants to work 80 hours a week to become successful, your communist government basically tells you to go pound sand and says; i dont care how hard you work or how successful you want to become, you still are only going to get as much money as that homeless person over there, and in my opinion that is complete BS, if someone works their ass off to become successful, they should be rewarded for it, and if someone sits on their ass all day doing nothing just being a parasite to the system, then they deserve nothing, why should i work my ass off just so some parasite can profit from it? how is that "fair"?

Communism provides some answer to that: there are people who are "parasites" not because of lack of virtue, but because of economical and social circumstances they live. If you are child of homeless drug addict and prostitute you will have it harder. And it's not just matter of money: you probably won't have opportunity to make social connections to help you out, you'll have to worry to survive instead of, for an instance, learning, you'll have to bear stigma because of your parents. And it works other way around, obviously: having middle-class parents makes you much more likely to succeed - if not for any other reason, then because you at least probably have some safe haven when things go bad. How is *that* fair?

Also - it's worth noting that capitalism is based on myth of "self-made man" and ignores things I mentioned above. And other thing - while communism can lead to class-fueled hatred and genocide, capitalism, by itself, "dehumanizes" people, because it bounds person's worth with their ability to produce. This leads to calling people "parasites" and denying their worth.

I honestly can't understand why Communism is not as hated as Nazism.

I think it's because philosophy of nazism is inherently violent and genocidal. IMHO the basic the difference between them is that when Stalin was losing in the war and there was serious risk that Germans will take over Moscow, he made truce with Orthodox Church, his enemy, because that was rational thing to do.When Hitler was losing war, he continued Holocaust to the last possible moment, even when that harmed war effort. That is vital difference. Other thing - philosophy of nazism is based on idea that races are different and some are superior to others. It's core belief is that biologically some people are inferior. Meanwhile core belief of communism is that history is rational and it moves forward through revolutions fueled by class warfare and leads to classless utopia. I think that there is pretty big difference between saying that Jews are lesser, subhuman beings, and saying that bourgeoisie is oppresing class and working class should revolt.

The trouble with this theory is that no human being gives a rat's ass WHY they're being tortured or killed. If they're tortured and killed because they're Jewish, or if they're tortured and killed because they're 'bourgeoisie' is irrelevant to the people experiencing it. Also the violence is never dished out solely on the 'other'. It ALWAYS escalates out of control. The problem with all of the 'revolutuonary' philosophies is the revolutions themselves. Kill thousands or even millions of people and nothing ever changes. It's all bullshit to keep people in a constant state of fear and agitation. In my opinion, of course...

The trouble with this theory is that no human being gives a rat's ass WHY they're being tortured or killed. If they're tortured and killed because they're Jewish, or if they're tortured and killed because they're 'bourgeoisie' is irrelevant to the people experiencing it.

I don't agree. I think that for example martyrs care why they suffer. And even if that was true I can't see how that changes anything. Still, there can be better and worse reasons to proclaim someone an "enemy", and race is one of the worst I can think of.

The problem with all of the 'revolutuonary' philosophies is the revolutions themselves. Kill thousands or even millions of people and nothing ever changes. It's all bullshit to keep people in a constant state of fear and agitation.

The trouble with this theory is that no human being gives a rat's ass WHY they're being tortured or killed. If they're tortured and killed because they're Jewish, or if they're tortured and killed because they're 'bourgeoisie' is irrelevant to the people experiencing it.

I don't agree. I think that for example martyrs care why they suffer. And even if that was true I can't see how that changes anything. Still, there can be better and worse reasons to proclaim someone an "enemy", and race is one of the worst I can think of.

The problem with all of the 'revolutuonary' philosophies is the revolutions themselves. Kill thousands or even millions of people and nothing ever changes. It's all bullshit to keep people in a constant state of fear and agitation.

Well, French Revolution changed a lot. And Russian Revolution too.

The French may be better off but the Russians aren't much. Millions of people died as a result of both. Is that what you're promoting?

Not even Bhaal of the Forgotten Realms setting expected people to want to get murdered, nor that any particular group deserved to. For the idea that some people are wanting or deserving death for reason of race, religion, or social class, you need the real world.